Sunday, March 22, 2009

Durham City Council, the Sandbox, and Courage

On Thursday, March 19, 2009, the Durham City Council agreed to complain to Duke University President Richard Brodhead about the bad behavior of partying Duke students in Durham communities. By addressing their complaint to the university president, Council member Howard Clement, III, said, “We need to go directly to where the buck stops.” Council member Eugene A. Brown referred to the rowdy Duke students with the following colorful analogy, “(They) see themselves as cool cats but they’re using that neighborhood (Trinity Heights) as their sandbox.”

I, for one, do not understand the rhetoric of the Council members. First, the buck does not stop with the Duke University president, because the residents in the affected neighborhoods are not all enrolled in the university, and the activities involving drunken behavior and other bad acts are not part of the curriculum. It is evident from the Duke Lacrosse case, that President Brodhead was unsuccessful in reining in the out-of-control behavior of the Duke lacrosse team at the numerous and infamous parties they hosted. As far as rowdy students disrupting Durham neighborhoods, the buck stops with Durham Police Department, the Durham district attorney, and finally, the state attorney general.

Not long ago, Durham was fortunate enough to have a district attorney who was committed to dealing fairly and ethically with students from the prestigious university who engaged in activity that was disruptive and criminal in nature. This district attorney was independent and was not bound by favoritism or the playbook of Duke University or Attorney General Roy Cooper. Because, in pursuing prosecution of a case, he did not give special advantage to Duke students from wealth and privilege, as was expected by those in higher circles, he was persecuted, prosecuted, professionally destroyed, used as fodder by the media for ridicule and contempt, sentenced to serve jail time for doing his job, and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar. That prosecutor, with 27 years of exemplary service to the state of North Carolina, is Michael B. Nifong, the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception (a fact that the media has kept well hidden from the public).

The Durham City Council, which sat on its hands, silently while Mr. Nifong was destructed by the state and media, is whining because Duke students now, more than ever, have a feeling of entitlement to act without fear of suffering any consequences for their actions. This is a proximate result of outcome of the Duke Lacrosse case, where the Duke Lacrosse defendants were portrayed as sympathetic and innocent heroes and completely exonerated by Attorney General Cooper, while their prosecutor was vilified and personally attacked. The misguided outrage and animus against Mr. Nifong by the state, media, and public, along with the unwarranted capitulation by Duke University to the outrageous demands of the avaricious carpetbagger families of Duke Lacrosse defendants in reaching an out of court settlement, are not only responsible for the perpetuation of animalistic party behavior by Duke students in Durham neighborhoods, but are the grounds for the related legal problems that now face the city.

The carpetbagger families of the former Duke lacrosse players, whose greed is exceeded only by their malice, are cats which are using the city of Durham as its sandbox. The question is: what is the City Council going to do about it now? They can continue to remain silent, or they can belatedly come to the defense of Mr. Nifong. The State Bar disbarred Mr. Nifong for allegedly withholding irrelevant, extraneous information from the defense team about the presence of unidentified male DNA found on the rape kit exam of the accuser. (DNA information withheld was of no use to the defense team and had no bearing on the case against the defendants. ) However the State Bar, the Attorney General, Superior Court Judges, and the media go out of their way to defend, shield, and protect prosecutors who have destroyed evidence (Theodore Jerry Williams case), prosecutors who withheld exculpatory murder evidence from the defense (Michael Peterson and Alan Gell cases), prosecutors who have concocted false confessions of murder (Floyd Brown case), and prosecutors who have lined up false eyewitnesses (James Arthur Johnson case).

It doesn’t take courage to remain silent and do nothing. It doesn’t take courage to go along with a majority public sentiment that has been spoon-fed by a biased media.

Courage is represented by those who take a stand that is unpopular, and who are willing to put their names and their faces to a cause. Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong have done just that, and it is evidenced by their web site with the address: www.justice4nifong.com. I strongly recommend that the Durham City Council members visit that site, and hopefully it will stir within them a passion to see that justice is done for Mr. Nifong (which would be the State Bar’s unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law within the state of North Carolina without restrictions).

Although Mr. Nifong has no intention of practicing law in the state, even if his license were to be reinstated, the mere fact that the City Council would back such a resolution, would not only serve justice well, but place Durham in a much stronger position when it comes to determining whether or not the city will continue to remain a sandbox for the cool and the well-heeled cats.

How forgetful you are! You failed to mention that "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) mike nifong's "distinguished"(????) 27 year career included his involvement in prosecuting Michael Peterson. Do you suffer from selective amnesia?

Hey, justice4nifonggangof3

You calling yourselves heroes is like Nathan Bedford Forrest calling himself a hero for founding the KKK.

This comes from something said by biased prejudiced racist bigot injustice58, something to the effect that the Lacrosse players could have gone to trial and cleared their names. Why is "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong so desperately avoiding a trial which would clear his name?

Thr game is near up for "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong. He either has to defend or default.

Your jusyice4nifonggangof3 bought "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong a new guitar. When he eiyher defaulys or loses, will you pay off the judgment against him?

Either you are "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) Mike Nifong(we should add "Distinguished"(????) - he is the only prosecutor in NC history to be disbarred for misconduct, which distinguishing characteristic he labored so mightily to deserve) or you are channeling him.

Your behavior is very nifongish. You accuse people of wrongdoing without cause or evidence, you spew out invective and epithets probably thinking that makes them guilty, you claim to have extensive knowledge of the case(wendy murphy claimed nifong had unrevealed evidence which established the Lacrosse players' guilt), you claim the defense is concealing evidence.

Like "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "minister of justice"(???) "distinguished"(????) Mike Nifong you talk a loud talk. You will not walk because you will fall flat on your face.

As much as I would like to call Professor Johnson my friend, I have never had the honor of meeting him.

Please answer this(it should be no problem with your vast knowledge of the cgm fraud). Why has Professor Johnson been invited to discuss the case, even at Duke, while "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "distinguished"(???) "minister of justice?(????) Mike Nifong has not?

With all your ranting and raving about concealed evidence, have you ever asked yourself this question:

Why is it that the Lacrosse players are pushing a lawsuit, at which everything they have relevant to the case will be open to discovery, and "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "distinguished"(???) "minister of justice"(????) Mike Nifong is trying to duck it.

That says to me that "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "distinguished"(???) "minister of justice"(????) Mike Nifong does not want anything further revealed about the case.

Here is another situation to consider. Your are actually alleging a criminal conspiracy among Professor Johnson, the Lacrosse players and their attorneys to conceal evidence of a criminal act. The law(to paraphrase your friend injustice 58, the law is the law, no one is above the law) requires you to prove the allegation. Why have you been reluctant to reveal the information you claim to have that proves this conspiracy. If you do have such information and you are not revealing it, you are participating in the conspiracy. Are you making yourself vulnerable to a charge of obstructing justice?

A hospital administrator once let himself be convinced I had treated a patient incorrectly. He arranged for expensive treatment for the patient at an outside hospital at the expense of my hospital, treatment which harmed the patient and hastened his demise. When the evidence showed I had treated the patient correctly, that the administrator was the one making the error of judgment, he had his Peer Review committee go after me with a false charge totally without merit.

The outcome of the case was the administrator was removed as administrator and the Peer Review Committee was effectively suspended.

If you really are "decent"(?) "honest"(??) " distinguished"(???) "minister of justice"(????) mike nifong, it is no wonder you are ducking "the opportunity to clear your name"(acknowledgement to injustice58). You would wilt like an icicle in Hell under cross examination.

If you wanted to know what the weatherwas like in Durham, North Carolina, wouldnot it make sense to get a weather report from someone who actually lives in Durham,North Carolina?

Now when someone in Brooklyn or Stocktonor Louisiana claims on the Internet that itis raining and storming in Trinity Park, Durham, North Carolina, and Kilgo looks out his window and the sun is shining, who are you, Dr. Ubes going to believe?

And when these same outsiders continuallybroadcast incorrect weather reports, wouldn'tyou Dr. Ubes, not pay any attention to them?

Rather, Dr. Ubes, logical man that you couldbe, you would ask the person living in Durham, North Carolina, how is the weather?

Not long ago, Durham was fortunate enough to have a district attorney who was committed to dealing fairly and ethically with students from the prestigious university who engaged in activity that was disruptive and criminal in nature. This district attorney was independent and was not bound by favoritism or the playbook of Duke University or Attorney General Roy Cooper

Is this the same DA who had no problem prosecuting (or is that persecuting) Duke kids in the city of Durham's 0 tolerance of Duke students? Discrimination by class is still discrimination. Is this the same DA who in open court on Dec 15 2006 got caught in a conspiracy to hide evidence? If that is how you define fortunate, I'm glad I don't drink your water

DNA information withheld was of no use to the defense team and had no bearing on the case against the defendants.

The fact that you would write this tells me you have no clue as to evidence.

If you truly want justice, then ask Roy Cooper to ...no, make that....demand of Roy Cooper that he should look at the lengthy list of abuses by the other DA's. Your boy Mikey was just careless and stupid about it and got caught in open court with his pants down. He won't and shouldn't get his license back. The others that you talk about should all loose theirs

What is wrong with anyone protecting their city? The city is not going to put up with bullshit from Duke students thinking they're above the law.

They'd better learn to follow the f-ing rules. Who gives a f*** how much money they have? The law is the law!

The law is the law when it is applied evenly. When it discriminates against a class (in this case Dukies)(0 tolerance for Duke students) it becomes a weapon of injustice. This has nothing to do with the money these kids have or how much you think they have, it has to do with justice and justice isn't served when you treat someone harder then others because of his or her perceived class.

The law is the law when it is applied evenly. When it discriminates against a class (in this case Dukies)(0 tolerance for Duke students) it becomes a weapon of injustice. This has nothing to do with the money these kids have or how much you think they have, it has to do with justice and justice isn't served when you treat someone harder then others because of his or her perceived class.

Ah Ha...You mean like Crystal Mangum was treated? You mean the way she was demonized on the court house steps with dog and pony shows exposing her private sexual life? You mean because ..."she was just a stripper"?

Put up or shut up. Your claims of extensive knowledge of the cgm case does not hold water without verification, which thus far you have failed to provide. Like injustice58, you are an uninformed, racist bigot.

Biased prejudiced racist bigot fanatic injustice58

It is refreshing to see your intellectual ability or lack thereof has not improved.

cgm was more than "just a stripper" She was a stripper with a history of promiscuity, marital infidelity, criminal behavior and falsely accusing men of rape. She was not badly treated when people would not buy into her lies(which changed every time she tried to repeat them) against the lacrosse players.

I have better things to do today than p--s off you and silly killy. Will be back to you later

That cgm is a college graduate confers no honor on NCCU. It raises questions about their standards.

Don't forget cgm also had a history of mental instability and drug use, and as a mother it was 3 children with separate fathers.

So far as being a demon from Hell, I hate to disappoint you. Satan would not have me. He was angry that I stand up for the innocent Lacrosse players against people like you, silly killy and sidney harr de harr harr.

How well did "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong protect the city of Durham against Michael Jermaine Burch. He raped a Duke coed, was released on bail, and while released raped a second woman.

In C. S. Lewis SCREWTAPW LETTERS that describes you accurately. It goes, the devil is a proud spirit who can not abide being mocked.

When challenged to show some credibility, you sure dance around. You dance around the way "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong danced around when the defendants attorneys tried to show him exculpatory evidence. How does the weather in Durham show you are knowledgeable about the cgm case?

Have you read the motion for a change of venue made by the defense attorneys before overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooper announced the exoneration of the Lacrosse players. The reasons cited to justify a change in venue show the residents of Durham had no clear idea of what "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong was trying to do. Maybe they were too busy watching the weather in Durham.

Have you read the motion for a change of venue made by the defense attorneys before overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooper announced the exoneration of the Lacrosse players. The reasons cited to justify a change in venue show the residents of Durham had no clear idea of what "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong was trying to do.

There are lies & then there are... damn lies! The reasons given for a change of venue were... damn lies.

Have you read the motion for a change of venue made by the defense attorneys before overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooper announced the exoneration of the Lacrosse players.

Victoria/Sidney Harr

Since Unbekannte brought up Roy Cooper's overwhelmingly reelection...I wonder how much money did he receive in campaign contributions & who/where did he receive it from? It is a matter of public record, isn't it?

If you were married, and your husband slept around with different women, would you consider it only his business? Consider the prevalance of STDs. If you slept with some other woman's husband would you consider it none of her business?

As I have repeatedly said to silly killy, put up or shut up. What was specifically cited in the motion for change of venue that were lies?

How much Roy Cooper received in contributions should be part of the public record. Why don't you do a Google search? Are you afraid? If you so much wanted him defeated, why did you not contribute to his opponent - or maybe I should ask how much did you contribute to his opponent?

cgm refuses to be silent? Explain why cgm has not said anything since her "event" at which her book was announced. I say again, if she had a case to make she would go to civil court, as the Brown and Goldman families did post OJ Simpson. Why has she refused to do this? The most logical answer is, she has no case. She would be open to cross examination in which she would again demonstrate she falsely accused the lacrosse players.

"Decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong portrayed cgm as a somewhat innocent single mother struggling to put herself through college. That was nothing but a blatant attempt on the part of "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong to inflame the Durham public against the defendants. When he did that the defendants had a right to respond, to impeach what "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong was saying.

Did you ever stop to think, if cgm had not falsely accused the Lacrosse players of rape, her private life would not have been exposed. There would have been no rape kit. There would have been no further testing at DNA security which revealed evidence to which the defendants were entitled according to North Carolina and Constitutional law. If cgm was exposed for what she was, blame cgm and "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA) mike nifong.

If you were married, and your husband slept around with different women, would you consider it only his business?

It would be a private matter and none of the public's business!

If you slept with some other woman's husband would you consider it none of her business?

Yes! LOL Just kidding!

What was specifically cited in the motion for change of venue that were lies?

That there was such prejudice against the accused that they couldn't obtain a fair and impartial trial?

It was a cold calulating lie and it was racist thinking.

Explain why cgm has not said anything since her "event" at which her book was announced. I say again, if she had a case to make she would go to civil court, as the Brown and Goldman families did post OJ Simpson. Why has she refused to do this?

She made her point during the press conference. But who is to say what is happening behind the scene, eh?

The motion cites the multiple inflammatory statements made by the DA, the gang of 88 statement alleging a crime had committed, the statement being made before any investigation had been done, the street demonstrations, you know, the pot bangers carrying banners saying castrate and give them full measure, the newspaper coverage e.g. a Herald Sun editorial describing a trial as an opportunity for the lacrosse players to prove themselves innocent(the prosecution is obligated to prove them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not vice versa as you seem to think).

Are you saying none of this happened? If so, you are more deluded than I thought. Or, are you trying to dodge the question, like your bluffing buddy silly killy.

Judging from the sales of cgm's memoir, she failed to make any point other than she falsely accused the lacrosse players and nothing is going on behind the scenes.

You really do not know squat about the motion for change of venue, do you. You are no more than a mindless, uninformed, ineffective bs artist, just like your buddies silly killy and sidnet harr de harr harr.

The point is that the zeal you exhibit in going after Mr. Nifong is not balanced by your seeming non-interest you have to giving any thought to whole subject of exonerations in North Carolina period.

You are a historian. You would not start a study of current Middle Eastern history from the most recent Gaza War. To have context, you have to go back at least to rupture of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century and the emergence of Zionism and build forward.

Go ask Joe Cheshire why it was so important to change the legislation in North Carolina over discovery rules. Within days of the dismissal of the charges, a law sponsored by the trial lawyers passed the legislature. Pay attention people. That was so they could get poor black men and red necks you people would not let in your houses out of jail. Talk about irony!

Know your North Carolina history. Know that Governor Easley and AG Roy Cooper have some very suspect convection in their past and the Democratic Party contributors at the bar would never go after them.

Be consistent and call for the legislature to pay all exonerate men an amount proportional to what you are asking for the crybabies and see how much support you get for that. Call for the bar, run by Cheshire, to go after DA's that they have already won against in court. It will never happen. They do not have an interest in that. Guess what, you will never see that because the cat will be out of the bag.

KC, admit you are a shill for the players families to misdirect and to try to influence public opinion. What have you been promised? What do you benefit? How do you have so much inside dope on the case? Does the judge need to slap you on the wrists for helping Bork and his crew try to get around the order for everyone to keep silent? Seems to me that someone needs to look into how close you are to certain people. To be sure this isn’t just your hobby.

From my reading of things, you seem to be a very well respected fellow. Why taint your reputation by getting in bed with people like Howowitz and Gaynor? Even if you are not pals with them, they sure do carry a heavy odor. The stench they carry is hard to wash off. Gaynor even sounds like an anti-Semite to me. Horowitz just hates himself. What about you KC are you feeling unfulfilled or do you covet something the chattering class has? You want to be invited on Hannity or Fox and Friends?

Won’t all of you feel so silly when the cases are dismissed? The few counts that might make it to court will not stand either because somebody will have to try to explain the convoluted story about a conspiracy to harm the choirboys.

Go ahead and accuse me of being stupid. You are the patsy on this one. Too bad your legacy will be your obsession with this case. Pathetic and sad is it not when you thought you would be considered a hero and now you are just a dope. Yes, I called you a name. Since most of this has reverted to childish rants, I figured I would beat you to the punch. My skin is thicker than anyone on here so have at it. Call me whatever you want.

"Go ask Joe Cheshire why it was so important to change the legislation in North Carolina over discovery rules. Within days of the dismissal of the charges, a law sponsored by the trial lawyers passed the legislature."

Are you saying North Carolina's open discovery law was passed in response to the cgm rape fraud case. According to the Raleigh News and Observer(ublished: Thu, Apr. 12, 2007 12:30AMModified Thu, Apr. 12, 2007 03:01AM) the Open Discovery Law was passed in response to the Alan Gell case prior to cgm's false accusations of the Lacrosse players.

Anonymous at 3/29/09 12:27 AM posts on the justice4nifong blog as kilgo. I have referred to him as silly Donald Duck killy. I offer my apologies to Mr. Duck but kilgo's responses to some of my posts on that blog were like a Donald Duck cartoon tantrum.

Kilgo has claimed to have extensive knowledge of the cgm case, at one point claiming to know more than all the Liestoppers put together. When challenged to reveal his knowledge, he responds with name calling and invective. Recently he offered as evidence of his extensive knowledge his ability to know the weather in Durham better than someone in Brooklyn.

He, in my opinion, is one of many examples of why the Lacrosse players would havr never received a fair trial in Durham. He "knew" the LAX players were guilty and no facts or evidence would show otherwise. 3/29/09 5:26 PM

QUACK QUACK QUACK ...KC, admit you are a shill for the players families... QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK What have you been promised?...QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK... What do you benefit? ... QUACK QUACK QUACK... How do you have so much inside dope on the case? QUACK QUACK QUACK..... QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK

KC Johnson said... To the 12.27:

You observe: "The point is that the zeal you exhibit ...QUACK QUACK QUACK...GANG OF 88... GANG OF 88... QUACKQUACK QUACK QUACK ..The blog is quite clear in its subject matter...

Considering the tracks you left on the web, multiple belligerent comments declaring the Lacrosse players guilty, before any evidence was in, after the evidence came in and showed cgm had falsely accused them, you are in no position to determine what is a fair, unbiased trial.

If you mean the style of the font, yes it was bold(rather than plain text or italic or what have you). The statement itself was a lie. If you want to believe a lie, you have the problem.

The Lacrosse players, in a series of bolde statements, asserted their innocence. The evidence developed in the case supported the Lacrosse players, not cgm. So you could have come to the belief that the Lacrosse players were lying and that cgm was truthful only by way of insane irrationality.

I dare you again to explain the DNA findings, which do not support cgm's allegation. She said, at DUMC, after the party, she was assaulted and penetrated by a number of Lacrosse players who did not use condoms. The rape kit when tested by the State Crime Lab found no evidence of blood, semen, saliva, of any material which would have been left, had an assault taken place the way cgm described it. The more sophisticated testing by DNA Security revealed DNA from multiple males was present, none of whom was a Lacrosse player. It was old DNA, not the fresh DNA one would expect from a recent penetrating ejaculatory rape. If there indeed was a rape, it meant the rape happened before the night of 13-14 March 2006, that it happened somewhere other than 610 Buchanan Avenue, and that the perpetrators were men other than the Lacrosse players.

You have made a big deal of the DNA found on cgm's fingernail which was found in a trash basket in the bathroom at 610 Buchanan Avenue. How do you explain that cgm's DNA was not found in that bathroom.

Your knowledge of the evidence, thus far, has been non existent. That shows your knowledge of the facts of the case is non existent.

Please let us know how cgm could have been raped by the Lacrosse players when the evidence says otherwise. Your explanation, or attempt thereof, should be interesting.

Regards

Ubes

PS Actually, your argument that cgm made a bold statement and that you believe her is a pretty pathetic, puny attempt on your part to justify your animosity towards the innocent Lacrosse players. To make your case, you will have to do better than that.

You have made a big deal of the DNA found on cgm's fingernail which was found in a trash basket in the bathroom at 610 Buchanan Avenue. How do you explain that cgm's DNA was not found in that bathroom.

We do know she WAS in that bathroom tho.

1.Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash?

2.How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail? We know he didn't throw the nails in the trash...Matt Zash did, according to his statement!

3.Did Crystal scratch him?

According to Matt Zash's statement, it was he who threw the nails that he found in the bathroom into the trash, and not Evans.

"How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail? We know he didn't throw the nails in the trash...Matt Zash did, according to his statement!"

David Evans' DNA was not found on the fingernail. DNA which could not exclude DNA but which could have come from thousands of other men, was found on the fingernail. The question I am posing to you is, why was the DNA of neither David Evans, Reade Seligman nor Colin Finnerty NOT found on the rape kit or on cgm's person while the DNA from a number of other males was. The most likely reason any male's DNA was on cgm's false finger nail was that she made contact with him.

The police searched the house, picked up a number of items but did not find cgm's DNA in the bathroom.

I believe the semen of one player who lived in the house was found in the trash. David Evans lived in the house. Finding their DNA in their own bathroom is as significant as the police finding your DNA in your own bathroom.

Again, answer the question, how do you account for the FACT that no DNA matching any Lacrosse player was found on the rape kit or on cgm's person. How did that happen in the scenario cgm described to the people in the DUMC ER, that she was penetrated and ejaculated upon by many members of the Lacrosse team who did not use condoms.

Once more, the FACTS you are ducking are (1) cgm described a scenario in which DNA would have been left behind and (2) no DNA from any Lacrosse player was found.

To again quote you, "What percentage of guilty people in prison proclaim their innocence?"

You imply that guilty people proclaim their innocence. If you weren't referring to the Lacrosse players, if you haven't repeatedly proclaimed their guilt these past few years, who were you referring to? You were saying the Lacrosse players' efforts to defend themselves are indications they were guilty. What would an innocent person do - proclaim their guilt?

Answer the question, if you can. Why was no inculpatory DNA found on cgm's person, no DNA which matched any Lacrosse player?

If you weren't referring to the Lacrosse players, if you haven't repeatedly proclaimed their guilt these past few years, who were you referring to? You were saying the Lacrosse players' efforts to defend themselves are indications they were guilty.

You were referring to the Lacrosse players. After I had pointed out that the Lacrosse players had confidently told the public they were innocent, you made your remark about prisoners proclaiming their innocence. Your remark implied that a protestation of innocence was an indication of guilt

Why was no Lacrosse player DNA found on cgm? Why was DNA from multiple males, non Lacrosse players found on her?

Please consider the criminal prosecution of Micheal Nifong for civil rights violations in the Duke Lacrosse case. At the minimum it appears that Due Process and Equal Protection violations certainly may have occurred to the three victims/defendants in the case.

You have authority to prosecute Mr. Nifong and other government actors under the federal criminal statutes. (18 USC § 241,242). Thank you.

This is a follow-up to my criminal complaint concerning Michael Nifong dated February 13, 2009. To specify further, Mr. Nifong’s conduct appears to violate the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Attached is my earlier letter that your office confirmed receipt of. No person in this country has more power to destroy the lives of private citizens than a government prosecutor. A strong message needs to be sent that misconduct will not be tolerated. Thank you.

You have also failed to demonstrate how the Lacrosse players could have gotten a fair trial in Durham. Either you are unaware of the hostile climate which existed in Durham at the time or you are denying it was significant.

"If Crystal Mangum is such a liar and so falsely accused the indicted ones....Why isn't she also added to the civil suits?"

First off, by your criterion, she is not innocent. You have said that guilty people protest their innocence.

She was probably not added to the lawsuit because she was judgment proof. She has no assets to lose. She is probably keeping a low profile hoping to avoid the lawsuit.

Answer the question. Put up or shut up. Why did the DNA evidence show no contact between cgm and any Lacrosse player? Why did the DNA show contact between cgm and multiple other males?

Even your hero, "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "exemplary"(HA HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong admitted the DNA was significant and exculpatory. He went to great lengths to conceal that evidence from the Lacrosse players and their attorneys.

"If Crystal Mangum is such a liar and so falsely accused the indicted ones....Why isn't she also added to the civil suits?"

It is a bit disappointing that cgm was not added to the civil suits. I can imagine her on the stand, asked what about the DNA evidence, and her answer, well, the lack of DNA does not mean a crime did not happen. The judge would order that statement srticken from the record as non responsive and irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because the issue never was whether a crime did not happen. The issue was whether a crime DID happen. What you do not seem to realize is that it was the DA's obligation to prove the crime DID happen. If cgm were to file a lawsuit, she would have to prove a tort did happen. AND SHE WOULD FAIL, SHWE WOULD FALL FLAT ON HER FACE!

Q.You understood this case to be a rape case, correct?A.That's correct.Q.You understood it to be a case where the allegationwas that a person had been raped by multiple males?A.That's correct.Q.And that those males had not been wearing condoms?A.I don't remember if I knew that or not.Q.Of course, why -- the point being you were testingPage 63

for the presence of DNA from males, correct?A.Right, right. But it could have been one personwearing a condom and one person not.Q.Okay. But you knew, you were testing for thepresence of male DNA because a rape allegation had been made?A.That's correct.Q.Correct?A.Correct.Q.And you found male DNA from multiple differentsources on those rape kit items, correct?A.That's correct.Q.Wouldn't that tend to negate the guilt of the personwho is charged with raping someone?A.You know what? We -- no.Q.Well --A.Not necessarily.Q.-- please explain your answer.A.And I will. And we run across that fairly often. Itis possible for a person to be raped and no semen left there,okay. So it doesn't, by itself, it does not show that theperson was not there. And it's a CSI effect. We call it aCSI effect, okay. Just because a person doesn't leave DNA atthe scene, it doesn't mean that he was not there. He may nothave been there and he would have to be there to leave theDNA, but if the DNA is not there, it doesn't mean they werenot there. Simple analogy, and it may be anoversimplification: A person can rob a bank and never leave afingerprint. It doesn't mean they didn't rob the bank.

DOCTOR QUACK QUACK UBESplease get back to us when you have read the whole thing.

Duck is a good name for you, not only because of your Donald Duckian tantrums, but also because you like to duck the issues.

The issues are(read carefully, you have comprehension problems)

1) cgm told the DUMC ER people that material had been left, i.e. she had been penetrated and ejaculated upon by a number of Duke Lacrosse players who did not use condoms.

2) the rape kit showed no evidence of blood, semen, saliva, of any material which would have been left in the scenario cgm described

3) the DNA testing done by DNA Security showed on cgm's person DNA from multiple males who were not Lacrosse Players.

The testimony you quote has already been summarized by your pal injustice58, that a rape can occur without any DNA being left. The question you are ducking is, how could have that happened in this particular alleged rape. In a court of law, that testimony would be meaningless. A Prosecutor has to show a crime did happen, not that it might have happened.

Your hero, "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "exemplary"(HA HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong, admitted at the start of the case, the finding of DNA would be crucial, not the lack of DNA. According to "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "exemplary"(HA HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong, DNA would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. In light of this statement, explain why there was no DNA to identify any perpetrators.

You can not. You dismiss the DNA because it contradicts your assertions, because it shows you know nothing.

Put up or shut up.

regards

Ubes

PS You really ought to do something about this delusion that you are a duck.

Say, for argument's sake, cgm does file suit against the Lacrosse players. She would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Lacrosse players had harmed her. What evidence could any of you provide to refute the evidence already out there against her, the DNA evidence, the Medical exam which showed no evidence of a brutal assault, her inconsistent accounts of the attack, the original 911 call which mentioned nothing of a rape(Kim Roberts said only that racial epithets had come from the house), her failure to initially identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant, including the three who were charged.

Your premise is that a rape did occur but no DNA was left. How do you prove who did not leave any DNA?

You may say the victim can identify her assailant. cgm herself demonstrated that is not infallible. cgm identified Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty as her assailants. Both had solid alibis, documentation they were not present at 610 Buchanan at the tine the alleged rape supposedly happened. cgm initially described her attackers as short and stocky, but Colin Finnerty is tall and thin. She could identify neither David Evans or Reade Seligman when first shown their pictures. She did identift Brad Ross as being at the party when he was in Raleigh the whole night. She claimed David Evans had a mustache at the time, when David Evans had never had a mustache.

This April 4 photo lineup, done at the behest of "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "exemplary"(HA HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong, was totally improper. It contained no fillers, was conducted by gottlieb, who was involved in the case, and cgm was coached - she was told she would be viewing only suspects.

"You went after Michael Nifong like a pit bull because he dared to charge rich white men on the word of a black stripper. You're just another racist with the hood off."

nifong, by his own admission, did not personally speak with the "black stripper" until several months into the case. Until several months into the case, he was prosecuting the Lacrosse players with no first hand knowledge either of what the "black stripper['s]" was or that it changed dramatically whenever she spoke it. 3/30/09 6:32 PM

If you were testifying in a court of law on behalf of cgm, if you were asked to explain the DNA evidence, you probably would reply something like, the lack of DNA does not mean no crime happened. And the judge would say, strike that from the record, it is non responsive

When will you stop the duck imitations and show us what you know? Why do you persistently to refuse to tell the public what evidence you have to prove what Professor Johnson is concealing.

Again, if you were testifying on behalf of cgm, and said on the stand that Professor Johnson was concealing evidence of what happened to her, you would be obligated to prove your allegation. The way our legal system works, the way most legal systems work is that the accuser must prove, the accused is not required to disprove. You would be required to put up or shut up. I am asking you straight up, can you prove Professor Johnson is concealing evidence about the cgm case?

World's Most Knowledgeable Lacrosse Con-Artist" does "LIE and LIE and LIE." silly killy claims extensive knowledge of the cgm case. When asked about the case, he obfuscates rather than answer, then accuses those who question him,without cause or evidence, of wrongdoing. Then he seems to become possessed of some evil Duck Demon and waddles around quacking his head off.

You got that somewhat wrong. Before the state proves anything, the state determines the truth. The DA, representing the state is ethically obligated NOT to go trial when the state has no case, which was the situation in the cgm case. cgm was no victim.

However you are charging Professor Johnson with concealing evidence of a crime, which in anyone's book is obstruction of justice(some more pro boner advice). If you have evidence that Professor Johnson is concealing evidence in the case, you are legally obligated to go to the authorities. If you fail to do so, you become an accessory to the crime - you participate in the obstruction of justice.

Why do you not go to the authorities? I suspect you realize you would be the state's star witness. You would have to give evidence under oath. You would either give false evidence or you would admit you have no evidence. If you give false evidence, you perjure yourself. If you admit you have no evidence to give, you leave yourself open to filing a false report, and you give the person you accused a cause of action against you for civil damages.

So I challenge you again - if what I have described is not what is going on either put up or shut up.

"decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "exemplary"(HA HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong could not explain the DNA situation. So he made a rather cynical attempt to have the evidence excluded.

silly chicken killy alleges cgm was raped, but silly chicken killy also can not explain the DNA situation. He does claim the rape could have happened without DNA being left. But, like "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "exemplary"(HA HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong before him, he tries to make the evidence vanish.

It won't work. Explain the DNA evidence or admit it was exculpatory. Put up or shut up.

Yes, but the state must provide evidence. Often the evidence comes from the victim/complaining witness. The only evidence coming out of cgm was the Exculpatory evidence. As Overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooper put it, there were no witnesses, no evidence to support any of the charges, and cgm's own statements contradicted themselves.

You claim to have evidence that the defense covered up all the inculpatory evidence. So, don't be afraid to put up or shut up. Let us know what you know. Become a complaining witness and give evidence.

"1.How do you explain Matt Zash's DNA NOT being on the fingernails when he was the one who threw them in the trash? Not Dave Evans.

2.Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash?

3. How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail?

4.Did Crystal scratch him?"

None of that is relevant to whether or not a rape took place.

Evans DNA was not on the fingernail.

What is relevant is that the DNA of the accused was not found on cgm's person after cgm told medical personnel that DNA was left. The only DNA found on cgm was DNA from males who were not Lacrosse players. That is what you need to explain.

Let's again address the issue, "How did Evans DNA get under that fingernail? "

"No player was connected to DNA recovered from Mangum during her medical examinations. But tests from a private laboratory hired by Nifong, DNA Security Inc., showed that DNA from several men was found on false fingernails recovered from a trash can in a bathroom at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., where Mangum said she was raped."

"DNA from a broken false fingernail from Mangum, which was retrieved from the trash in the bathroom, showed some characteristics similar to David Evans' DNA, according to the private laboratory, but the match was not conclusive." This comes from Wikipedia. It was published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 12 May 2006.

This is from NBC17, broadcast 5/11/06:

"DURHAM, N.C. -- A Duke lacrosse player whose DNA may match tissue found under the fake fingernails of an exotic dancer who claims she was raped was identified in a photo lineup with 90 percent certainty, sources tell NBC-17.

The Durham Herald-Sun reported Thursday tissue found under the accuser's acrylic fingernail came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing.

The paper cites several sources and said scientists also ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, according to the sources.

If accurate, the fingernail tissue match would offer the first DNA evidence potentially linking the dancer and an alleged attacker.

But because a complete DNA pattern was not obtained from the tissue, it was not possible to match it with the nearly 100 percent certainty that DNA results usually offer, the sources added."

This comes from USLaw Blog Directory, the url http://www.uslaw.com/library/Criminal_Law/Difficult_Task.php?item=399954

"Or take a passage, discussing the DNA evidence, describing a ?second test on the accuser?s fingernails that had a match with the third player indicted.? Of course, no such ?match? existed. The discredited Dr. Brian Meehan claimed that Dave Evans? DNA, along with the DNA of two percent of all the males in the United States, couldn?t be excluded as a possible match, even though the State Lab had made no such judgment, using the same sample."

How about you explain why David Evans' DNA was NOT found on the fingernail.

"But because a complete DNA pattern was not obtained from the tissue, it was not possible to match it with the nearly 100 percent certainty that DNA results usually offer, the sources added."

In other words, there was no tissue on the finger nail. If the nail came off during a struggle, if she had scratched David Evans, there would have been more than a partial DNA pattern. cgm, at some point, could have touched one of thousands of males in and around the Durham area.

How about you explain why the fingernail DNA DID NOT match David Evans

You throw Donald Duckian tantrums when confronted with the truth. You are to chicken to admit you know nothing about cgm's attempted frameup of the Lacrosse players. Why not add to your repertoire of bird imitations by adding "gobble gibble gobble" yo your posts. Show the world what a turkey you are.

"Yes, but the state must provide evidence. Often the evidence comes from the victim/complaining witness. The only evidence coming out of cgm was the Exculpatory evidence. As Overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooper put it, there were no witnesses, no evidence to support any of the charges, and cgm's own statements contradicted themselves."

Your buddy, injustice58, quoted it in one of her posts prior to your post of April 2, 2009 6:54 PM.

The way overwhelmingly reelected NCAG Roy Cooperput it comes from the AG report of his investigation of the case in which he did talk to cgm and read the police reports, unlike "decent"(HA) "honorable"(HA HA) "distinguished"(HA HA HA) "exemplary"(HA HA HA HA) "minister of justice"(HA HA HA HA HA) nifong did when he headed the case.

Are you referring to scratches noted on cgm? Those were old scratches and were present before her performance, or lack thereof, at the party. You would have known that, if you really knew anything about the case.

Besides, if you are referring to scratches inflicted on cgm, not by cgm on another person, why would those scratches leave someone's male DNA on her false fingernail?

Perhaps you might tell the world specifically mentions scratches. In the meantime, here are some sections of the AG report:

"No testimony or physical evidence would have corroborated her testimony;

After arriving at the emergency room, the accusing witness recanted the earlier statement that she had been sexually assaulted.

No other physical evidence from any accused individual was found in the bathroom where the alleged assault was to have occurred.

Testing of the accusing witness’s false fingernails retrieved from the trash can in David Evans’s bathroom excluded all lacrosse players and party attendees except David Evans. While analysts could not confirm the DNA matched Evans, he could not be excluded. However, the DNA evidence failed to confirm that a sexual assault occurred for several reasons:

First, statistically, the chance of randomly selecting an individual from the population that could be included in this sample would be approximately 1 in 1000.

Second, a visual examination at the SBI lab of the recovered fingernails indicated that there was no skin or body tissue attached. The accusing witness had said the fingernails were ripped off during the attack.

Third, to the extent that Evans’s DNA could not be excluded, the SBI experts confirmed that the DNA could easily have been transferred to the fingernails from other materials in the trash can.[I hope injustice58 is reading - if so what do you think of the fingernail DNA now]

A white towel found in the hallway outside one of the bathrooms contained no DNA from the accusing witness. She had stated she was wiped down after the assault with either a towel or a rag.[for sidney harr de harr harr, how could the lacrosse players have removed all their DNA and left behind all the other DNA, if this is what happened?]

Sergeant J.C. Shelton of the Durham Police Department responded to the 911 call from the security guard. Shelton arrived at the grocery store at approximately 1:32 a.m. Shelton observed the accusing witness, still apparently unconscious, in the front seat of “Nikki’s” car. Shelton described the accusing witness as dressed in a flimsy outfit. He observed that the clothes were not torn.[How could she be so violently assaulted, yet her "flimsy" clothes were not torn?]

Witnesses at the party stated she was stumbling and unsteady when she arrived at the party and throughout the night. Witnesses also stated that she fell to the ground during her dance performance.

The special prosecutors witnessed similar behavior firsthand when meeting with the prosecuting witness on April 4, 2007. At this time she acknowledged having taken multiple prescription drugs.

Despite initially claiming that two individuals ejaculated in her and/or on her, testing by the SBI Crime Lab analysts of evidence collected in the rape kit failed to reveal the presence of semen or sperm. Additional testing by a private firm, DNA Security Inc., in Burlington, NC, found no DNA that matched any of the party attendees on the items in the rape kit.{This is the DNA evidence which neither you nor injustice58 can explain]

In addition to these new statements, the accusing witness made other statements to the special prosecutors during the interview on March 29, 2007 that raise doubts about her credibility concerning the events on the night in question.

She was not with “Nikki” when the 911 call regarding the racial comments outside 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. was made;

She and “Nikki” left 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in “Nikki’s” car at 11:50 p.m.;

She and “Nikki” rode around for an hour after leaving the house;

Evans and Seligmann threw her onto the back porch after the alleged assault;

Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty kicked her in the neck while she was on the back porch after the alleged assault;

Ten party attendees assaulted her in the back yard by pushing her around;

Evans and Finnerty put her in “Nikki’s” car.

Verified and credible photographic, documentary and testimonial evidence contradicts each of these seven statements.[In other words, cgm lied]

In a meeting with the special prosecutors on April 4, 2007 the accusing witness demonstrated unsteady gait, slurred speech and other mannerisms that were consistent with behaviors observed by numerous witnesses who were at the party the night in question and confirmed through a video taken that night. The special prosecutors confirmed that the accusing witness had taken Ambien, methadone, Paxil and amitriptyline, for which she had prescriptions, prior to meeting with the special prosecutors that day.

On March 16, 2006 the accusing witness claimed that the alleged assault lasted 30 minutes. On December 21, 2006, she claimed that the alleged assault lasted 10-15 minutes ending at midnight. On March 29, 2007 she stated to the special prosecutors that the alleged assault lasted 20-30 minutes.

"Testing of the accusing witness’s false fingernails retrieved from the trash can in David Evans’s bathroom excluded all lacrosse players and party attendees except David Evans. While analysts could not confirm the DNA matched Evans, he could not be excluded. However, the DNA evidence failed to confirm that a sexual assault occurred for several reasons:

First, statistically, the chance of randomly selecting an individual from the population that could be included in this sample would be approximately 1 in 1000.

Second, a visual examination at the SBI lab of the recovered fingernails indicated that there was no skin or body tissue attached. The accusing witness had said the fingernails were ripped off during the attack.

Third, to the extent that Evans’s DNA could not be excluded, the SBI experts confirmed that the DNA could easily have been transferred to the fingernails from other materials in the trash can."

This is evidence people working for your hero nifong developed. The fingernail DNA did not conclusively match David Evans, nor did it indicate a sexual assault.

So,how do you explain why no Lacrosse player was found on cgm, after cgm alleged she had been penetrated and ejaculated upon by men not wearing condoms, but DNA from multiple males, non lacrosse players was found?

You say the Lacrosse players could have raped her and not left any DNA. Not in this case, woman.

Testing of the accusing witness’s false fingernails retrieved from the trash can in David Evans’s bathroom excluded all lacrosse players and party attendees except David Evans. While analysts could not confirm the DNA matched Evans, he could not be excluded. However, the DNA evidence failed to confirm that a sexual assault occurred for several reasons:

First, statistically, the chance of randomly selecting an individual from the population that could be included in this sample would be approximately 1 in 1000.

1 in 1000? But it wasn't a 1000 people in the room either.

Third, to the extent that Evans’s DNA could not be excluded, the SBI experts confirmed that the DNA could easily have been transferred to the fingernails from other materials in the trash can."

The key word is could. It didn't say it was definitely transferred.

The question remains...

Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash? Were those items tested to be sure?

Why didn't Matt Zash's DNA show up in testing? He threw the nails in the trash...not Dave Evans?

On January 13, 2007, Attorney General Roy Cooper accepted the request of the Durham District Attorney to take over cases involving three individuals who were accused of sexually assaulting a woman at a party in March 2006.

In agreeing to accept the cases, he promised a new review of the evidence and additional investigation, and that “the path that these cases travel will be lighted by the law and the evidence alone.”

The charges against the three individuals arose out of allegations that an exotic dancer who had been hired to perform at the off-campus party during spring break 2006 had been the victim of a sexual assault by three members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

As a result, grand jury indictments were returned in April 2006 against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty accusing them of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense and first-degree kidnapping. In May 2006, David Evans was indicted for these same offenses.From the outset, all three of the named defendants strenuously maintained their innocence. In the ensuing months, numerous court proceedings were held regarding motions filed by defense counsel. In late December of 2006, Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong dismissed the charges of rape against all three defendants.The same month, the North Carolina State Bar notified the Durham District Attorney that it was initiating a disciplinary hearing into his conduct related to certain aspects of his handling of these cases. As a result, on January 12, 2007, District Attorney Nifong requested the Attorney General’s Office to take responsibility for the prosecution of all pending matters pursuant to the North Carolina General Statutes.

The resulting review focused only on the criminal charges of first-degree sex offense in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-27.4 and first-degree kidnapping in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-39. The special prosecutors reviewed the State’s evidence compiled to date resulting from a party held at a house at 610 N. Buchanan Boulevard in Durham, North Carolina on March 13, 2006 and into the early morning of March 14, 2006.

After the transfer of the case files, the special prosecutors conducted new interviews with witnesses, collected new information and compared this evidence with previous statements and evidence.The re-investigation led to the conclusion that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation that the crimes occurred. The new investigation revealed additional weaknesses in the State’s cases based on the case files that had already been developed.

Durham County Superior Court case file Nos. 06 CRS 4332-4336, 5582-5583The State’s cases rested primarily on a witness whose recollection of the facts of the allegations was imprecise and contradictory. This alone would have made it difficult for a prosecutor to prove the allegations. However with additional evidence uncovered in the new investigation, it was clear that there was no credible evidence that these crimes occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in Durham that night.

Because of the lack of evidence and the additional affirmative proof that these crimes did not occur during this time, the Attorney General along with his special prosecutors, Senior Deputy Attorney General James J. Coman and Special Deputy Attorney General Mary D. Winstead, believed it was in the best interest of justice to declare these three individuals innocent of these charges.

The Attorney General and his special prosecutors based their decision on the totality of their review of the evidence. Primarily, their investigation found that:

The accusing witness’s testimony regarding the alleged assault would have been contradicted by other evidence in the case from numerous sources;

The accusing witness’s testimony regarding the alleged assault and the events leading up to and following the allegations would have been contradicted by significantly different versions of events she told over the past year;

No testimony or physical evidence would have corroborated her testimony;

The accused individuals were identified through questionable photographic procedures;

Credible and verifiable evidence demonstrated that the accused individuals could not have participated in an attack during the time it was alleged to have occurred;

The accusing witness’s credibility would have been suspect based on previous encounters with law enforcement, her medical history and inconsistencies within her statements.

The investigative methodThe Attorney General’s Office special prosecutors, together with agents from the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and assistance from the Durham Police Department, spent 12 weeks reviewing the case files, questioning witnesses, examining evidence and collecting information.

They reviewed more than 7,000 documents including the original police and prosecution investigative reports, cellular telephone records from witnesses and the accused individuals, state and private laboratory records, defense summaries, and records which remain under seal by court order.They reviewed more than 600 photographs, including police non-testimonial photographs of Duke lacrosse players and 25 photographs and two videos of the accusing witness taken by individuals who were at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd at the time in question. They verified through expert witnesses and sworn affidavits that the metadata times reflected in the photographs and videos were accurate.The special prosecutors and SBI agents interviewed 47 people, including 17 members of the Duke University lacrosse team, one of whom was the team’s only non-white player, and two other students, all of whom attended the party. They interviewed medical personnel, police officers and attorneys for the indicted players. The special prosecutors asked Durham Police Department investigators and SBI agents to follow a number of investigative leads. The special prosecutors also consulted with SBI experts on DNA, toxicology, blood chemistry and other forensic evidence.

The special prosecutors also met with the prior prosecutor, his investigator, and Durham Police investigators and officers. They talked with the accusing witness on several occasions in person, and at other times by telephone. A dancer who was with the accusing witness during the night in question met with the special prosecutors. During that meeting she declined to be interviewed without a subpoena. Previously, she had given an initial statement to police and had made voluntary public statements to the media which were reviewed by the special prosecutors.The special prosecutors interviewed the SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) and law enforcement officers involved with the accusing witness on the night in question. They reviewed information from the emergency room physician, a comprehensive statement from the nurse at Durham Center Access, and reviewed the reports of law enforcement officers who had contact with the accusing witness that night. They visited the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

The Office of the Attorney General’s review of this information helped to establish a sequence of events that occurred that night.

Narrative of a sequence of events that occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on March 13-14, 2006, based on interviews of witness es and reviews of photographic, video, documentary, medical and scientific evidenceOn March 13, 2006 a party hosted by three Duke University students took place at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in Durham, NC. The three students, Dan Flannery, David Evans and Matt Zash, were members of Duke’s lacrosse team and residents of the house. Approximately 40 other students attended the party; most, but not all, were also team members.Sometime in the afternoon on March 13, one of the party hosts, Dan Flannery, called an escort service. The host did not provide his real name nor did he tell the service that 40 people would be at the party. He asked for two WHITE(emphasis added) dancers to come to 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. at 11 p.m. to entertain for a small bachelor party at the house.

The escort service arranged for two dancers, the accusing witness and a woman who used the name “Nikki” for the escort service, to go to 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. at 11 p.m. The two dancers did not know each other. Neither was Caucasian.“Nikki” arrived at the house by herself shortly after 11 p.m. She was met by Flannery and was there for at least 30 minutes waiting for the other dancer, who was the accusing witness, to arrive. She did not allege that anything inappropriate happened to her while she was waiting during this time.

Beginning at 11:10 p.m., Flannery called the escort service three times seeking to learn the whereabouts of the other dancer, who was the accusing witness. Prior to arriving at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. the accusing witness received four incoming calls and made one outgoing call on her cellular telephone from 11:11 p.m. until 11:36 p.m. The outgoing call was placed at 11:25 p.m. and lasted seven minutes. The last incoming call that was received at 11:36 p.m. lasted three minutes.

At approximately 11:40 p.m., the accusing witness was dropped off by her driver at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. The accusing witness was described as being unsteady on her feet from the time she arrived and throughout the rest of her time at the house. The driver drove to a nearby gas station and paid for a drink at approximately 11:43 p.m.Each of the dancers was paid $400 in cash. Flannery showed both dancers to a bathroom to get ready for their dancing. “Nikki” was in her street clothes and needed to change. The accusing witness had arrived in an outfit she wore to perform. The host informed the other party attendees that the dancers were not Caucasian and asked if they still wanted the women to perform. The consensus was to have them perform. The dancers, meanwhile, were not expecting a 40-person party, but instead, a small bachelor party. However, they consented to perform.

Sometime just before midnight, the two dancers entered the living room to begin their performance for the party attendees. While performing, the accusing witness appeared to be unsteady on her feet and fell to the ground. During the performance, there was sexual banter involving the use of sex toys between “Nikki” and some of the party attendees. This culminated in one of the attendees holding up a broomstick and suggesting its use as a sexual object for the dancers. “Nikki” was angered by this comment and the performance abruptly ended. After 12:04 a.m., the dancers left the room and retreated to the back of the house.

They were followed by David Evans, Dan Flannery, and possibly others who tried to assuage their feelings about the broomstick comment while pointing out that the party attendees had paid $800 for only a brief performance. The dancers returned to the bathroom where they had left their belongings. The two women remained in the bathroom alone together for a period of time.At approximately 12:05 a.m., just after the dancing ended, Reade Seligmann, began using his cell phone and initiated a series of phone calls to his girlfriend and others. At 12:14 a.m., he called a taxi cab company to pick him up. He and another party attendee then walked around the corner and got into a cab at approximately 12:19 a.m. The cab driver took Seligmann and the other party attendee to an automatic teller machine, arriving at approximately 12:24 a.m. After Seligmann made a withdrawal, the cab driver took Seligmann and the other player to a take-out restaurant and then back to Seligmann’s dormitory. Seligmann entered his dormitory at 12:46 a.m.

There was a range of other activities going on by the party attendees during this time. In addition to Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and other attendees decided to leave after the dancing ended. Others stayed and expressed displeasure at having paid money for a short performance that was expected to have lasted for two hours, and wanted a refund or a continuation of the performance. Some party attendees were milling around both inside and outside the house.

The dancers eventually left the bathroom and went to the back yard together. Flannery went outside to talk with them. He urged them to come back into the house to continue the performance. He apologized for the comment that was made during the performance. The dancers went to “Nikki’s” car. David Evans and others came to the car and talked with them.Inside the house, some of the party attendees continued to express their displeasure with the truncated performance. Some said they had been cheated. Two of the attendees, while using the bathroom, noticed that one of the dancers had left her cosmetics bag behind in the bathroom. Each separately took money out of the bag and were told by Flannery and Evans to return the money to the bag. During this time, more attendees were leaving the house to go elsewhere.

The dancers had a conversation at the car. Then they both re-entered the house through the back door. Once inside the house, other attendees apologized to the dancers for the earlier comments. The individual who earlier held up the broomstick then approached the dancers which caused “Nikki” to become angry again, and the dancers went back into the bathroom alone together and refused to come out.

Flannery tried again to coax the dancers out of the bathroom. Zash and Evans began to encourage everyone else to leave. During this time, Zash said he wanted everyone out of the house because he was concerned that excessive noise would prompt neighbors to complain to police. Flannery continued to talk to the dancers, who were alone together in the bathroom, in an attempt to get them to leave the house.

While the dancers were still at the house, Collin Finnerty walked to 1105 Urban Street, a nearby house rented by other Duke students. At 12:22 a.m. Finnerty made a 2-minute call to a fellow lacrosse player using his cell phone. At 12:27 a.m. another lacrosse player called Finnerty’s cell phone looking for him. Finnerty told the player that he was at 1105 Urban St., and that player walked to the house and met Finnerty there.

Finnerty called Domino’s Pizza at 12:30 a.m. and again at 12:33 a.m. Finnerty and three other players walked from 1105 Urban St. to Cosmic Cantina restaurant where they ordered food and paid at 12:56 a.m.

The dancers opened the bathroom door and left 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. for the second time through the back door sometime before 12:30 a.m. “Nikki” and Flannery together walked to her car parked on the street in front of the house. The accusing witness remained behind outside the house. With both dancers and most of the party attendees out of the house, Zash locked the door of the back porch of the house to prevent the accusing witness or anyone else from re-entering the house. The accusing witness began banging on the door to get in. Zash refused to open the door.

At 12:26 a.m., the accusing witness placed a telephone call to the escort service. Moments later, at 12:30 a.m., she was observed and photographed outside the house on the back porch steps, smiling and rummaging through Evans’ shaving kit. Under her arm is her cosmetic bag containing an object that appears to be her cell phone.Other party attendees outside the house at the same time observed her behavior. She was overheard talking incoherently, apparently to no one in particular. In a video recorded at 12:31:26 a.m., she is talking to one of the party attendees saying “I’m a cop” and making other comments which were difficult to understand. The video also shows the difficulty she was experiencing with her balance as she attempted to walk from the back porch down the stairs, as well as her attempt to engage in a disjointed conversation with party attendees who were nearby.

At 12:34 a.m., while Flannery and “Nikki” were in the front of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. and the accusing witness was outside the house as previously described, Evans called his girlfriend and spoke with her for approximately 16 minutes.

At 12:37 a.m. the accusing witness was observed and photographed lying in a prone position on the back porch. Flannery was called by other attendees from the rear of the house and told that there was a problem. Flannery left “Nikki” and returned to the back of the house where he observed the accusing witness lying in the position described above. Flannery then assisted the accusing witness in walking from the back porch to “Nikki’s” car where she was placed in the front seat by Flannery. Both dancers were in the car at 12:42 a.m.

After the accusing witness was placed in “Nikki’s” car, “Nikki” yelled a sexually and racially based comment at a group of party attendees standing across the street near the wall to East Campus at the university. One or more of the party responded with racial epithets. After this exchange, “Nikki” drove away with the accusing witness in her car. At approximately 12:53 a.m., “Nikki” called 911 to report that a group of white men were yelling racial comments at passersby outside of North Buchanan Boulevard.

The two dancers arrived at a Kroger grocery store in Durham. The accusing witness refused to get out of “Nikki’s” car and appeared to be unconscious. “Nikki” went in to the Kroger store and requested a security guard to notify the Durham Police Department. At 1:22 a.m., such a call was received at the 911 center.

Sergeant J.C. Shelton of the Durham Police Department responded to the 911 call from the security guard. Shelton arrived at the grocery store at approximately 1:32 a.m. Shelton observed the accusing witness, still apparently unconscious, in the front seat of “Nikki’s” car. Shelton described the accusing witness as dressed in a flimsy outfit. He observed that the clothes were not torn.

“Nikki” advised Shelton that she did not know the identity of the woman in her car. She claimed that she was driving on North Buchanan Boulevard and heard some individuals in the vicinity of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. yelling and making racial slurs toward the woman in her car. “Nikki” told Shelton that she picked the woman up because she was concerned about her safety and that the woman passed out in her car.

Shelton unsuccessfully tried to rouse the accusing witness. When she was unresponsive to his efforts, he held smelling salts near her nose and she began to breathe through her mouth. The accusing witness was removed from the car, but was unable to stand on her own. She refused to identify herself or say where she lived. Shelton then instructed one of the officers on his shift to take the accusing witness to the Durham Center Access, an organization that offers access to mental health, substance abuse, and developmental disabilities services.

It was at Durham Center Access that a nurse asked the accusing witness if she had been raped. The accusing witness answered in the affirmative. This was the first time she had indicated to anyone that she had been the victim of a sexual assault.

After this information was communicated to one of the officers present, he was instructed by Shelton to take the accusing witness to the Duke University Medical Center Emergency Room. After arriving at the emergency room, the accusing witness recanted the earlier statement that she had been sexually assaulted. While Shelton was communicating this information to the Watch Commander, he was advised that the accusing witness was changing her story and was again saying that she was sexually assaulted. At that point, the Watch Commander advised Shelton to treat the situation as a rape investigation. The ensuing investigation ultimately led to the indictments of Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty.

Deficiencies in the Process of Identification of Accused Individuals

As the investigation of the rape allegations went forward, the Durham Police Department investigators sought information from the accusing witness to identify her alleged assailants. The special prosecutors concluded that the process by which the accusing witness ultimately identified David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty as her attackers was of questionable validity.The first identifying information was provided to authorities on March 14, 2006, the day after the party, when she referred to her attackers as “Adam,” Brett” and “Matt.” In subsequent statements to the police on March 16, 2006 and April 6, 2006, she described various versions of how the assault occurred, but continued to refer to “Adam,” “Brett” and “Matt” as her assailants.

Two days later, on March 16, 2006, the Durham police showed the accusing witness four different photo arrays in an attempt to obtain identification evidence. The 24 photographs she was shown included only members of the Duke lacrosse team. After reviewing these photographs the accusing witness was only able to state that she was 70 percent certain that Reade Seligmann was at the party, although she could not recall where she saw him. She was unable to identify any player as one of her attackers.

Eight days after the party, on March 21, 2006, the accusing witness was shown another 12 photographs of lacrosse team members. After being shown this array twice, she was again unable to identify any photograph as that of one of her attackers. These 12 photographs included a picture of David Evans, which she also viewed twice and failed to identify.In late March, 2006, the Durham police obtained Nontestimonial Identification (NTID) orders requiring each white member of the lacrosse team to submit DNA samples and allow photographs to be taken. The Durham police, at the direction of the District Attorney, converted these photographs into a PowerPoint presentation.

On April 4, 2006, the accusing witness was shown these new photographs of the players through a PowerPoint presentation. The accusing witness was advised that she would be viewing photos of individuals that the police had reason to believe attended the party.Each photograph was projected individually, rather than simultaneously in a line-up format. She was shown photographs of only the 46 white lacrosse team members. When shown the photograph of Reade Seligmann, she stated she was 100 percent certain that he had forced her to perform oral sex, but that was all that he did. The photograph of Collin Finnerty was identified with 100 percent certainty as a player who had raped her vaginally and anally. When viewing the photograph of David Evans she identified him with “about 90 percent certainty.” She stated: “He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me . . . He looks just like him without the mustache.” In addition, the accusing witness identified at least one picture of a player from the PowerPoint presentation as being present at the party who further investigation revealed was not there.

The photographic arrays shown to the accusing witness on four different occasions were limited to members of the lacrosse team. “Fillers,” or individuals not regarded as potential suspects, as recommended by Durham Police Department policy for identifying suspects, were never included.

It was not until the April 4, 2006, PowerPoint presentation of 46 team members, without “fillers,” that the accusing witness first identified the three accused individuals as her attackers.

Almost nine months later, on December 21, 2006, the District Attorney’s chief investigator on the cases arranged a meeting with the accusing witness. Contrary to the practice followed in prior meetings with the accusing witness, the investigator met with her without the presence of another officer to witness and corroborate the questions and answers.

Significantly, the chief investigator also showed her the photographs of lacrosse team members she had previously viewed on April 4, 2006 in the PowerPoint presentation. The chief investigator’s interview of the accusing witness was not recorded and neither the chief investigator’s notes nor his subsequent report revealed that the accusing witness was shown the photographs again, although he acknowledged to the special prosecutors in an interview that he had done so.No explanation for this was contained in the chief investigator’s report or notes. His report does reflect, without explanation, that the accusing witness, for the first time, began referring to the three individuals as David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, rather than “Adam,” “Brett” and “Matt.” The chief investigator’s report also does not indicate whether the accusing witness was still able to identify the three individuals previously identified on April 4, 2006.

Showing the accusing witness these photographs which were the subject of a pending motion to suppress, along with her use of the proper names of those charged, provided the defense additional grounds to argue that the out of court and in court identifications should be suppressed, which would effectively have ended the case.

DNA evidence does not support any of the claims by the accusing witnessDespite initially claiming that two individuals ejaculated in her and/or on her, testing by the SBI Crime Lab analysts of evidence collected in the rape kit failed to reveal the presence of semen or sperm. Additional testing by a private firm, DNA Security Inc., in Burlington, NC, found no DNA that matched any of the party attendees on the items in the rape kit.As a result of Nontestimonial Identification Orders obtained by the Durham police in late March 2006, DNA samples were taken from each of the 46 white members of the lacrosse team. These samples, along with DNA samples obtained from the accusing witness, were transferred to the SBI Crime Lab for analysis. In early April 2006, these DNA samples, along with additional samples from two non-lacrosse party attendees, were further analyzed, using more specialized technology, by DNA Security Inc.

The special prosecutors, in February, 2007, began to review the documents reflecting the laboratory results of the testing done by the SBI and DNA Security, Inc. The Forensic Biology section of the SBI Crime Laboratory was also asked to assist in the review of the documentation and analysis which had been performed by DNA Security Inc. The SBI paneled a four-member team to review this documentation, which included standard operating procedures, quality manuals, validation studies, the firm’s most recent quality assurance audit, analysts’ curriculum vitae, and the analytical reports and results. The panel also met with the Director of DNA Security Inc. in order to ask questions and clarify details.

As a result of the information provided by the SBI, and the special prosecutors’ own review of the laboratory documents, it was determined that the DNA evidence was reliable and supported the following primary conclusions:

Testing of all rape kit materials obtained from the accusing witness on March 14, 2006 excluded all lacrosse players and party attendees.

DNA from one or more men, who were not lacrosse team members or party attendees, was present on rape kit items.

Testing of the accusing witness’s false fingernails retrieved from the trash can in David Evans’s bathroom excluded all lacrosse players and party attendees except David Evans. While analysts could not confirm the DNA matched Evans, he could not be excluded. However, the DNA evidence failed to confirm that a sexual assault occurred for several reasons:

First, statistically, the chance of randomly selecting an individual from the population that could be included in this sample would be approximately 1 in 1000.

Second, a visual examination at the SBI lab of the recovered fingernails indicated that there was no skin or body tissue attached. The accusing witness had said the fingernails were ripped off during the attack.

Third, to the extent that Evans’s DNA could not be excluded, the SBI experts confirmed that the DNA could easily have been transferred to the fingernails from other materials in the trash can.

No other physical evidence from any accused individual was found in the bathroom where the alleged assault was to have occurred.[I am interpreting this as, no evidence that any of the alleged assailants were in the bathroom when cgm was in there]

A white towel found in the hallway outside one of the bathrooms contained no DNA from the accusing witness. She had stated she was wiped down after the assault with either a towel or a rag.

The Special Prosecutors therefore concluded that the results of the DNA testing did not support a prosecution of any of the three accused individuals.

Credibility Issues

The Special Prosecutors assessed whether the accusing witness’s testimony at trial would have been credible.With no evidence other than the accusing witness’s word, a jury would have to conclude that her word was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.At trial, a jury, in assessing credibility, is told that they should apply the same tests of truthfulness they use in ordinary affairs. The jury may consider the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know and remember the things the witness testifies about, the manner and appearance of the witness, apparent understanding or fairness of the witness, and any interest, bias, or prejudice the witness might have. Finally, a jury would consider whether the testimony is reasonable and whether the witness’s account is consistent with other believable evidence.

The Special Prosecutors found that applying these tests to the accusing witness’s prospective testimony in conjunction with other evidence bearing on credibility, including materials under seal, revealed insurmountable credibility issues.

For example, the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know and remember the events of March 13-14, 2006:Accounts of her behavior at the party demonstrate that she was significantly impaired. By her admission, the prosecuting witness drank two large beers in the hour or so before arriving at the party.

Witnesses at the party stated she was stumbling and unsteady when she arrived at the party and throughout the night. Witnesses also stated that she fell to the ground during her dance performance.A video taken by a party guest just after she left the house for the last time shows her unable to walk without stumbling and in the audio, professing to be “a cop.” Her speech, gait, and mannerisms demonstrate that she was impaired.

Another photograph shows her lying unresponsive on the back porch.The special prosecutors witnessed similar behavior firsthand when meeting with the prosecuting witness on April 4, 2007. At this time she acknowledged having taken multiple prescription drugs.

The unlikelihood that her testimony would be consistent with other believable evidence:

She denied to the special prosecutors that she had made statements attributed to her in medical reports both the night of the alleged attack and in the following days. She denied making statements attributed to her in police reports. Significantly, on several occasions, when confronted with evidence that contradicted her assertions, she changed her story.

Her proposed testimony about critical events changed whenever it was demonstrated that what she was saying could not be accurate. An example: In her Dec. 21, 2006 interview with the District Attorney’s investigator, which was her first substantive discussion of the allegations after the DNA tests showed no trace of DNA from the accused individuals, it was reported that she stated for the first time that she was uncertain as to whether she was penetrated by the male organ of any of her alleged attackers and therefore could not say that a rape occurred. Consequently, the rape charges were dismissed by the then-prosecutor.In that same interview it was also reported that she indicated that one of the attackers did not actively participate in the alleged assault but was merely in the room. However, in a meeting with the Special Prosecutors on March 29, 2007, her story changed again and included that individual as an active participant.

Special Prosecutors’ Meetings with the Accusing Witness

The special prosecutors met with the accusing witness a number of times and questioned her about inconsistencies that existed at the time the Attorney General’s office accepted the case, as well as other inconsistencies that had arisen since then. This was apparently the first time these questions of inconsistencies had been asked formally.

In meetings with the special prosecutors, the accusing witness, when recounting the events of that night, changed her story on so many important issues as to give the impression that she was improvising as the interviews progressed, even when she was faced with irrefutable evidence that what she was saying was not credible. The accusing witness attempted to avoid the contradictions by changing her story, contradicting previous stories or alleging the evidence had been fabricated.

During the March 29, 2007 interview of the accusing witness by the special prosecutors and SBI investigators she made several new statements that she had never made before including:

Verified and credible photographic, documentary and testimonial evidence contradicts each of these seven statements.

She was not with “Nikki” when the 911 call regarding the racial comments outside 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. was made;

She and “Nikki” left 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in “Nikki’s” car at 11:50 p.m.;

She and “Nikki” rode around for an hour after leaving the house;

Evans and Seligmann threw her onto the back porch after the alleged assault;

Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty kicked her in the neck while she was on the back porch after the alleged assault;

Ten party attendees assaulted her in the back yard by pushing her around;

Evans and Finnerty put her in “Nikki’s” car.

In addition to these new statements, the accusing witness made other statements to the special prosecutors during the interview on March 29, 2007 that raise doubts about her credibility concerning the events on the night in question.For example, the accusing witness admitted she feigned unconsciousness during the early morning hours of March 14, 2006. She claimed she arrived at the party at 11:10 p.m. and dancing started shortly thereafter. When shown credible photographic evidence to the contrary, she claimed that the pictures had been altered. She stated that they danced in a bedroom not the living room. When confronted with credible photographic evidence to the contrary, she claimed Duke paid someone to alter the photos. She routinely denied she made various earlier statements that were attributed to her by law enforcement officials. She denied that she had made statements attributed to her in medical reports both the night of the alleged attack and in the ensuing days. The accusing witness claimed that the photograph of her on the back porch at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., time-stamped at 12:30 a.m. and in which she is smiling broadly, is a picture of her arriving at the party. When the special prosecutors pointed out that she was wearing only one shoe, she persisted in her position that the picture was taken when she arrived at the house.

In the same interview, the credibility of the accusing witness’s ability to identify the alleged attackers was further called into doubt. When asked how she could recall with such certainty who allegedly attacked her she claimed she was good at remembering faces. When the special prosecutors brought Officer Gwen Sutton of the Durham Police Department into the interview room, the accusing witness claimed she did not know Officer Sutton and had not seen her before that day. Officer Sutton had spent more than five hours with the accusing witness during the early morning hours of March 14, 2006.Similarly, when the special prosecutors asked her about her behavior during the party that suggested impairment, the accusing witness stated that she was dizzy and fuzzy when the two women began dancing that night. She said she was dizzy after the alleged assault, and that was why she was stumbling in the backyard. When asked how she could be certain of her identifications of her attackers, she said she was dizzy when the dancing started, she “woke up” in the bathroom, and then was dizzy afterward.

In a meeting with the special prosecutors on April 4, 2007 the accusing witness demonstrated unsteady gait, slurred speech and other mannerisms that were consistent with behaviors observed by numerous witnesses who were at the party the night in question and confirmed through a video taken that night. The special prosecutors confirmed that the accusing witness had taken Ambien, methadone, Paxil and amitriptyline, for which she had prescriptions, prior to meeting with the special prosecutors that day.

Self Contradictions by the Accusing Witness

The accusing witness gave numerous differing statements to law enforcement and medical personnel concerning the events on March 13-14, 2006. While witnesses often have inconsistencies in details when recounting events over time, the volume of inconsistent statements and the fact that many of these were substantial and were in regard to significant events rendered the truthfulness of the accusing witness in serious doubt.

For example, the accusing witness’s stories about the alleged attack cannot be reconciled.

At the emergency room, she stated to the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) that she had been sexually assaulted by three people: Adam, Brett and Matt. Specifically, she stated that Matt put his “private” in her and did not use a condom. Adam then put his private part in her “butt.” She did not state what Brett did, if anything, nor did she disclose any other sexual conduct.Two days later, on March 16, 2006, when talking with investigators, she stated that Matt held her legs and was in front of her. Brett was behind her and put his private part in both her anus and vagina. She claimed that Brett ejaculated. She stated that Matt then went behind her and choked her and did the same thing as Brett. She said that Adam became excited and began to ejaculate and put his “private” in her mouth. Adam then dragged her to the car and he and “Nikki”, the other dancer, wiped her off.

On April 6, 2006, in a handwritten statement, she stated that Matt raped her both vaginally and anally for a total of five minutes. Brett did the same for a total of seven minutes. She said Adam put his penis in her mouth and ejaculated. She stated that they threatened to kill her if she did not shut up. She said that all three were kicking her in the behind and back.On December 21, 2006, for the first time, she referred to the attackers by the names Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. She could not say with any certainty that they penetrated her vagina with their penises. She stated that she felt a sharp pain in her vagina and anus. She stated that Seligmann did not participate in the attack but just observed. This was first interview about the events after DNA tests showed that no DNA from the defendants was found on the accusing witness.

On March 29, 2007, she stated to the special prosecutors that the players took off her underwear and lifted her into the air. Finnerty crouched below her in a squatting position and held her up. Evans got behind her. She felt a sharp pain in her vagina. She felt a sharp pain in her anus. Finnerty got up and went behind her. Seligmann got under her and held her up in the air. Evans was then in front of her. Evans told Seligmann who was crouched holding her up to relax and do her. Evans ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it on the floor. She indicated to the special prosecutors that all three individuals were active participants in the assault.

The accusing witness also made contradictory and inconsistent statements about whether an attack took place at all. Sometime around 1:30 a.m. on March 14, 2006, the accusing witness did not disclose that any sexual assault occurred to the first law enforcement officer she encountered that night, Sgt. J.C. Shelton. She was then taken to the Durham Center Access, where in response to a question by a nurse about whether she had been raped, she responded “yes.” The accusing witness was then taken to the emergency room, where she told Shelton that she was “pulled from the car at 610 N. Buchanan and groped” but “no one forced” her to have sex. The accusing witness next told Officer Gwen Sutton at the hospital that she was penetrated by five guys and that “Brett” penetrated her vagina with his penis and hands.

Similarly, the accusing witness’s statements about the duration of the alleged assault have been contradictory and could not be reconciled with verifiable credible evidence.On March 16, 2006 the accusing witness claimed that the alleged assault lasted 30 minutes. On December 21, 2006, she claimed that the alleged assault lasted 10-15 minutes ending at midnight. On March 29, 2007 she stated to the special prosecutors that the alleged assault lasted 20-30 minutes.

Testimonial evidence supported by a receipt shows the accusing witness arriving at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. approximately 11:40 p.m. March 13, 2006. Time-stamped photographic evidence disclosed that the accusing witness was performing at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. beginning no later than midnight and ended the performance at approximately 12:04 a.m. Cell phone records which were verified by the special prosecutors and the SBI show that the accusing witness’s cell phone was used at 12:26 a.m. to call an escort service with whom the accusing witness was associated. Time-stamped photographs and videos show the accusing witness outside the house beginning no later than 12:30 a.m. and outside the house until she was put in “Nikki’s”’ car at 12:42 a.m.

Before midnight, all witnesses interviewed who had knowledge, including the accusing witness, stated that the accusing witness was with “Nikki” in a bathroom getting ready for the performance. After the performance ended at 12:04 a.m., all witnesses with knowledge stated that the dancers went back to the bathroom together and were alone for some time, left the house together and remained outside together for some time, came back to the house for some time and went back into the bathroom alone together for some time. It was evident to the special prosecutors that there was no opportunity for an attack to occur for even 10 minutes, much less the 20 or 30 minutes as alleged.

The determination to dismiss the charges

The special prosecutors’ investigation revealed multiple and significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the case, and no evidence to corroborate the accusing witness’s versions of the events:

No DNA evidence confirmed her stories. Any DNA evidence that might arguably support her stories is subject to a reasonable alternative explanation.No medical evidence confirmed her stories. The SANE based her opinion that the exam was consistent with what the accusing witness was reporting largely on the accusing witness’s demeanor and complaints of pain rather than on objective evidence.

No other witness confirmed her stories. No one at the house that night has come forward to support her stories and the other dancer has given conflicting accounts of the evening. In one account to ABC News, “Nikki” asserted that the accusing witness told her to put marks on her. Her varied accounts show her as a witness who would not be helpful to the prosecution.

The accusing witness’s accounts of the story changed significantly. Even in the face of facts that contradicted her stories, the accusing witness was unwilling to acknowledge in meetings with the special prosecutors that she might be mistaken about the identification of the defendants.

The ConclusionWhile prosecutors acknowledge that rape and sexual assault victims often have some inconsistencies in their accounts of a traumatic event, in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that the State had no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.

Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, the Attorney General and his prosecutors determined that the three individuals were innocent of the criminal charges and dismissed the cases April 11, 2007."

Where in this report are scratches. You may refer to the original document, accessible via DIW.

Sidney Harr de Harr:

Please note your hero nifong got the AG's office involved months after the case started. It was not Roy Cooper who conducted the investigation but two others.

Biased prejudiced racist bigot fanatic know nothing injustice58. Note the findings regarding the fingernail DNA, taken from the DNA security tests. DNA security was working for nifong. Ask nifong, therefore, how the DNA could have been transferred.

On March 16, 2006 the accusing witness claimed that the alleged assault lasted 30 minutes. On December 21, 2006, she claimed that the alleged assault lasted 10-15 minutes ending at midnight. On March 29, 2007 she stated to the special prosecutors that the alleged assault lasted 20-30 minutes.

Do you think any victim would be watching the damn time during a brutal assault, you idiot bigot?

No, but in her career cgm could have touched more than 1000 men in the Raleigh Durham area. The question you are avoiding is, Why was David Evans' DNA NOT found on cgm's person.

"The key word is could. It didn't say it was definitely transferred."

If you have a better explanation, let us know. If it was because cgm scratched David Evans explain why no tissue was found on the nail, only an incomplete DNA pattern. Besides, a legal point, it is not required by the defense to prove that the DNA evidence was transferred in the trash. It would be up to the prosecution to prove the DNA was transferred by physical contact between cgm and David Evans. Where is the proof of that? You don't have any, do you?

"The question remains...

Was Evans DNA found on any other items that were thrown in the trash? Were those items tested to be sure?"

The question is irrelevant. The question you are afraid to confront is, why was David Evans' DNA not found on cgm's person. Is silly killy teaching you how to duck dance?

"Did Crystal scratch him?"

If she did, there would have been tissue or blood on the fingernail, not an incomplete DNA pattern.

Did anyone ever note any scratches on David Evans? Why did the police not order him to undergo a physical examination to detect scratches?

The question I want you to answer is where did the AG report say anything about scratches. You are ducking and obfuscating again.

The police should have checked David Evans for scratches. They did not. That says they had no reason to check him for scratches, no matter how you uselessly try to distort the situation.

Even if David Evans had scratches, the big issue you are ducking is, why was no Lacrosse player DNA found on cgm's person, considering she said material was left, but DNA was found from several male non Lacrosse players

I see no point in transmitting your stupidity to Professor Johnson, since you are the one lying and obfuscating about and ducking the issues of the cgm case.

That the police did not check David Evans for scratches was most likely due to the fact that cgm failed to identify him, falsely, as her assailant until the highly improper April 4 lineup. She failed to identify David Evans twice previously when shown his picture. You would have known that had you reviewed the AG report.

"So far, no one from Durham or Duke has adequately explained to me as to why the lacrosse party required the kind of law-breaking response we saw from Nifong and others. So far, the lawyers for the plaintiffs have not explained, either."

Again, you are afraid to confront Professor Johnson on his own turf. Why do you ask others to distribute your delusional ramblings?

If you know why David Evans was indicted and arrested why don't you reveal the information. If you really had such information, it would be more effective to reveal it and then dare Professor Johnson to refute it.

"So far, no one from Durham or Duke has adequately explained to me as to why the lacrosse party required the kind of law-breaking response we saw from Nifong and others. So far, the lawyers for the plaintiffs have not explained, either."

If you really were so knowledgeable about the case, you would be able to explain this. So far you haven't. Neither have you ever denied that you know nothing about the case.

"On March 16, 2006 the accusing witness claimed that the alleged assault lasted 30 minutes. On December 21, 2006, she claimed that the alleged assault lasted 10-15 minutes ending at midnight. On March 29, 2007 she stated to the special prosecutors that the alleged assault lasted 20-30 minutes.

Do you think any victim would be watching the damn time during a brutal assault, you idiot bigot?"

So why did cgm offer this kind of testimony on different occasions, on each occasion giving a different duration, instead of saying something consistent, like, I don't know how long the attack lasted.

Johnson's silence on the facts of David Evans' arrest and indictment is sickening. 1/15/09 9:27 AM

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.27:

I'm afraid I don't understand your criticism: I have frequently written about how, as with Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, Nifong decided to indict Dave Evans even though the "minister of justice" had no evidence upon which to base his claim. How that constitutes "silence" on my part is not at all clear to me.

But don't take my word on the Evans matter: I would urge you to consult the attorney general's report on the matter. You can find the link on the side of the blog. 1/15/09 12:00 PM

Anonymous said...

It amazes me to see so many heads buried in the sand. I hope you're prepared to wait until infinity before Durham gives up any money. You'd best take Barry Saunders up on his offer. Durham will give up nothing. You outsiders haven't a clue about the people of Durham. You haven't seen tough. Get ready to wait until infinity.

Sorry, but I haven't even heard of a "Bat Cave". Not worth arguing about either. Ironic tho one would accuse someone of the very things you're trying to fight. Nevertheless, you shouldn't be so gullible to believe all that is spewed from KC Johnson's mouth. He can't answer a poster's simple question concerning Evans. He just dances around it. Did not any of you pick up on it? Figures. SMH. 1/15/09 2:20 PM

KC Johnson said...

To the 2.20:

I'd urge you to reread my comment--I didn't "dance" around the question, I pointed out that its premise (that I had somehow been "silent" about the Evans indictment) was factually untrue.

That the anonymous commenter chose not to examine what I've written about the Evans indictment is unfortunate. That said, I pointed to the AG's report, based on a comprehensive inquiry, which concluded that no evidence existed to justify the Evans indictment.

I say again, reveal whatever you know about the David Evans indictment and arrest. If you continue to refuse to do so, if you continue without cause to charge others of covering up information, you are again saying you really know nothing about the cgm frameup attempt.

You have yet to point out where in the AG report mentions anything about scratches. I called your bluff and you folded, just like you folded when I challenged you to reveal what you knew about DNA technology, just like you folded any time I have challenged you to reveal any meaningful knowledge.

You are channeling another bird, a loon. You are showing the world you are loony.